REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Limits of State Power

POSTED BY: SERGEANTX
UPDATED: Monday, May 25, 2009 08:03
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 25347
PAGE 5 of 8

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:05 PM

RIGHTEOUS9


YOu simply make it hard for other businesses to compete, and in a completely self-regulating market, that means you undercut them when they move into your neighborhood.

If you're a miner, and you've been mining your whole life, and that's the only trade you know, and all of a sudden your boss decides to change policy, change work hours, safety procedures, etc. etc.

you have the recourse to go somewhere else and mine....taht will only cost you the money to relocate and the loss of the place you always thought of as home.





But maybe you can't right now....maybe you just have to go a couple more months, just to keep your head above water.

Maybe your boss comes at you with a new contract, that says if you work for me, you can never work for another mining company, and maybe, out of little reasonable recourse, in such a time of hardship, you sign.

or maybe the other big mining companies have done the same thing to their policies...and you won't see a better shake over there.
Then what?

I guess it's time to retrain into some new field at 40 or so.

Do you really think this shit is self-correcting?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:07 PM

BYTEMITE


If you witness a crime and don't attempt to stop it, are you causing harm?

I'd agree with the "not paying someone well." Where else are they going to get money? You can have three jobs that don't pay well and still be in a bad spot.

Food... People can get food, although you have to not be too picky about where and what. Garbage cans are a good place, but is that really okay? "Eh, you're hungry, go eat out of a garbage can?"

And if you don't provide medical care for blue collar workers (who get injured more often than any other kind), you end up paying MORE for a simple injury simply on account of missed hours versus the medical bills. At least, that's what I heard. Where did I hear that... Was it in Hazwoper training? Hmm.

Is the point we're heading for the conversation about if people really need these things, they can always steal it?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


You've had Hazwoper????

So have my peeps!



----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:51 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I missed Hazwoper by the skin of my twitchy pulmonary endothelium. (asthma)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:36 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Do you really think this shit is self-correcting?

While not taught in public schools, american history is very clear on this - it WOULD have been, save for the factor of Government backing the corporations all the way up to and including using the goddamn airforce to drop bombs on those pesky miners that wanted their fair share.

One of my ancestors, Sid Hatfield, fought against the corporate goons in the Battle of Matewan, and was later assassinated with a nod and wink, rather than an investigation, sparking the Battle of Blair Mountain, the bloodiest confrontation on american soil since the civil war - and good ole Billy Mitchell helped out by dropping bombs on them, basically you had a bunch of miners trying to fight the corpie goons, AND the freakin army, and it was a slaughter.

As for many of the corpie goons and their eventual fate, lemme direct you to how the US Dept of "Justice" was formed and the Anti-Pinkerton act, which was in direct consequence to the Gov more or less forming the USDOJ out of those very corporate goons.

Don't you think that sans Government and the whole damn might of the US Military backing them up, things might have gone somewhat differently ?

Unions and Labor collectives CAN fight and win out against corpie goons, in the end it bankrupts a corp to try - but they cannot do so against the Corp, the Gov, and the Military, and if they COULD, damn straight they might as well just take over, unfortunately starting the whole cycle anew once corruption sets in.

Anyhows, google that stuff, and you'll have a fair idea of why NO ONE in their right mind trusts the US Gov to protect workers rights, they ain't NEVER done it on a scale worth the mention, in over 150 years, if not longer.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:52 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I think we've already agreed that the capitalist drive to raise profits winds up with lowering labor costs as much as possible. There's no incentive to provide anything more than starvation wages... or even less...




You keep stating that folks in capitalist economies are starving to death in droves due to low wages as if it's established fact. I'd like to see a cite, please. Both that wages tend to go down under capitalist economies and that starvation increases in any particular country as capitalism increases.

You also continue to ignore the fact that folks in communist and some socialist economies have starved and do starve to death because the close ties between government and economy allows politicians to withhold food to large groups of people for political gain. North Korea has starved 10% of it's population in the last few years, as I've noted above. I doubt you can find a capitalist country with such an egregious record.

BTW, sorry I'm not in the discussion more, but I had a 500 mile drive from Montana to Seattle today and will be flying home to Virginia all day tomorrow.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:23 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"You also continue to ignore the fact that folks in communist and some socialist economies have starved and do starve to death ..."

We've gone though this at least three times already.

Comparing apples to apples:

China v India
Kerala v West Bengal (home to Kolkata, formerly Calcutta)
Canada, or Denmark, or Sweden, or Switzerland or ... v the US

Looking at countries that have been 'allowed' to develop their own economies without US hindrance (unlike, for example Cuba) or help (like Japan), it appears overall those countries and regions which are socialist have an overall higher standard of living.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:40 PM

BYTEMITE


Wherever you find corruption, you can find people abusing other people. I don't think anyone has said that Communist nations like Russia and China weren't corrupt, or that the very structure of their government, the one party system with centralized nearly authoritarian control over the economy wasn't a breeding ground for nationalistic zealotry and corruption.

Seems to me the argument SigynM is making is one of poor workers, inflation, credit card debt, and faulty bank loans. She is not denying that starvation occurs in other systems, but is troubled that this system, capitalism, seems not as inclined to help and almost views the needy as being at fault.

But that could be putting words in her mouth.

Yep, I took Hazwoper. I think they covered business costs of health insurance versus non coverage during the segment on non-waste hazards.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:14 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

Canada, or Denmark, or Sweden, or Switzerland or ... v the US



Canada, Denmark, et. al. all have capitalist economies. They're not Socialist or Communist economies at all. The most they are is welfare states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

Communist economies - now that the Soviet Union has tanked - are China, Cuba, North Korea. Any more you can think of?

The Socialist Party U.K.- who should know who's Socialist and who isn't - says that there are no Socialist governments in Europe; that all governments have "remained capitalist through and through."
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/News2Frame.htm?socialistcountries.htm

So in comparing the U.S. to Sweden, etc. you're comparing apples to apples, and proving that capitalism works.

Thanks for your endorsement of Capitalism.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:03 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You keep stating that folks in capitalist economies are starving to death in droves due to low wages as if it's established fact. I'd like to see a cite, please. Both that wages tend to go down under capitalist economies and that starvation increases in any particular country as capitalism increases.
Oh, fuck you Geezer. I could cite nation after nation and incident after incident, but you with your background, of all people, know the stats as well as I do. So stop playing stupid, since you were an active player in the whole deal.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:11 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

Canada, or Denmark, or Sweden, or Switzerland or ... v the US



Canada, Denmark, et. al. all have capitalist economies. They're not Socialist or Communist economies at all. The most they are is welfare states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

Communist economies - now that the Soviet Union has tanked - are China, Cuba, North Korea. Any more you can think of?

The Socialist Party U.K.- who should know who's Socialist and who isn't - says that there are no Socialist governments in Europe; that all governments have "remained capitalist through and through."
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/News2Frame.htm?socialistcountries.htm

So in comparing the U.S. to Sweden, etc. you're comparing apples to apples, and proving that capitalism works.

Thanks for your endorsement of Capitalism.


"Keep the Shiny side up"



Ah - So when Obama moves to exert more government control over business, when he says we need to have a redistribution of wealth, when he says we need universal health care, and all the right-wing nut-jobs start screaming "SOCIALIST!" - what they REALLY mean is, "See? I told you he was a capitalist! He just endorsed capitalism!"

Right?

Sweet. I knew he wasn't really a socialist. Obama's win must surely be seen as a victory for capitalists everywhere; I'm sure Geezer would agree wholeheartedly.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Anyway Sarge, apparently several people besides me "get" the idea of economic coercion, from historical, theoretical and personal viewpoints. Its a concept you might wanna think about, because it is a very real phenomenon and salient to the conversation.

Frem: Yes, there was the might of anti-union guns, but there were other factors as well: The USA "trade-union" and the push for money instead of power (the unions weenied out), internal union corruption, the rise of anti-communism, and the USA's unparalleled post-war prosperity. Other unions in other places have succeeded in worse situations.



----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:40 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Well aware of it, as well as the rabid factionalism that helped Gov and Corps set them against each other, helped along by that ratbastard sellout Sam Gompers and his AFL punks breaking IWW strikes in the name of nationalism and patriotism, but in fact as payback for a cushy cabinet position.

And as well I am oh too well aware that both the red scare of the 20's and of the 50's had more to do with "breaking them damn unions" than anything else - one result of which that still haunts us even today is that any time a Union stumbled upon a trick that WORKED, the Corps ran crying to the Gov, who then made it illegal.

They played too nice, if you ask me, something I view with the same perplexed derision as begging the powers that be for a permit to protest against them...

The only contemporary union I got any respect for is the IWW, whom I am currently helping ram their boot up the arse of Starbucks crosswise.

I love the new logo, since many of the IWW folks I deal with directly hold Kallista as their unofficial mascot, since the image of the wild black cat has always been symbolic to them.


One of the issues that was so problematic is that the Unions in general became so much like the Corps they were up against that in the end there's not too bloody much of a difference - something the IWW by the very nature of it's own organisation isn't so much susceptible to, and in fact it runs a lot like the model Siggy proposed for co-ops.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:33 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyway Sarge, apparently several people besides me "get" the idea of economic coercion, from historical, theoretical and personal viewpoints.


I'm well aware that the popular consensus is with your view. That's one of the reasons I go out of my way to point the illogic I see in the idea.

Quote:

Its a concept you might wanna think about, because it is a very real phenomenon and salient to the conversation.


I've thought about it a lot, actually.

See, the phenomena you're describing are real. People with money aren't always generous. Some, in fact, will deliberately hoard money because they're greedy jerks. Some business people will take advantage of desperate people in desperate times. All of these thing happen.

The question is whether it's the same thing as threatening, or using, violence to get your way. It's not. And, from what I can see, those who coined the phrase deliberately borrow the terms "coercion" and "force" to insinuate that it is. I call bullshit on Orwellian attempts to implement political change by manipulating language. Even if such campaigns have already won over popular consensus.

[EDIT to add]
It may be just your usage of the term I'm objecting to. Yesterday I looked around for some definitions, and most defined it much more narrowly. Pretty much everything I read used it when referring to a situation where a business or person maintained monopoly over a necessary commodity. So this probably comes back to your idea of what constitutes a monopoly, which I've noticed is much more liberal than mine.


SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:56 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:



Ah - So when Obama moves to exert more government control over business, when he says we need to have a redistribution of wealth, when he says we need universal health care, and all the right-wing nut-jobs start screaming "SOCIALIST!" - what they REALLY mean is, "See? I told you he was a capitalist! He just endorsed capitalism!"

Right?

Sweet. I knew he wasn't really a socialist. Obama's win must surely be seen as a victory for capitalists everywhere; I'm sure Geezer would agree wholeheartedly.

Mike





The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money... and more must be printed by government idiots. He knows no country has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity.


More on this subject :


" Why has this become such an important topic? Because the current administration's economic strategy could create the greatest economic disaster in recorded history.

Not only is the administration planning on enormous deficit spending this year, but the current plan calls for increasing deficit spending for the next decade – spending that will more than double our entire national debt during Barack Obama's presidency. At the same time, Obama plans to extend federal control over vast and critical sections of our economy, promulgating new and extensive rules and taxes over both the power industry and the health care business.

These are probably the two most important engines of our economic growth. Producing huge amounts of inflation while severely restricting the most productive sectors of our economy is a recipe for catastrophe.

I don't have room for the all of the details in this space – and you hear enough bad news in the newspaper. Just know that, by 2019, our government's financial profligacy will saddle every family in America with around $800,000 in debt and unfunded liabilities. That doesn't include state or local governments, and it doesn't include any personal or corporate debt.

The government will pay for this debt by increasing taxes and inflating away the value of our currency. This will create a disaster in the coming years. I can't tell you when it will happen... but I can tell you it will happen. That's why it's critical you take precautions right now."

http://www.dailywealth.com/archive/2009/apr/2009_apr_23.asp

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Sarge, just doing a quick google search on coercion brings me this:

Coercion (co-er-shion) is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing; Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will; A specific instance of ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coercion

coerce - to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means

The definition is broader than you seem to think.


----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:11 PM

SERGEANTX


Well, semantic arguments over definitions don't really go anywhere. Rather than play qoute 'em, let me just get to the heart of the matter.

Most of you what you've described so far seems to be of the form "not helping" = "harming". eg not feeding someone is the same thing as forcing them to starve. That's what doesn't make sense to me.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:35 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


IF you have overwhelming economic power... and that is what I think is going on... THEN you CAN starve people because they have no other choice. Putting someone in a box, taking away their options, using your overhelming power make them accept whatever you propose, is coercion.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:38 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Paying starvation wages because you can is NOT equal to 'not helping'. You are benefitting at their expense. You are killing them for more money in your pocket. You are an ACTIVE element in their destruction.

Shame on you, SergeantX. You should know better. Or be more honest.



***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:25 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Shame on you, SergeantX. You should know better. Or be more honest..



I hang my head in abject guilt.

C'mon. You guys are assuming I'm defending this stuff, and I'm not. We've agreed the cards are stacked in favor of the corporations, and I think that business owners that play shitty games manipulating their employees are firstclass assholes. And in many cases they should be held accountable, with the force of law in necessary.

I'm simply disagreeing with your attempt to equate economic power with political power. The source of our disagreement is in your denial of what I consider obvious: economic power is dependent on political power (law). Righteous got it a few posts back. Without the law to back them up, the "money masters" are just assholes in ugly suits.


SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:45 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'm simply disagreeing with your attempt to equate economic power with political power. The source of our disagreement is in your denial of what I consider obvious: economic power is dependent on political power (law).
In this case, you've got it bassakwards. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say that the economic world is composed of just a few big players... one or two agricultural corporations, three or four clothing manufacturers, one chipmaker, an automobile maker or two etc. They all operate on the same principle: maximize profit, screw the worker. Maybe they're even in direct collusion... they set wages in consultation with with each other, they blacklist troublemakers etc. There's no law FOR it.... but there's no law against it either.

Now, let's assume you're a worker. You're starving to death. Your child is malnourished and deathly ill. Your family lives one step away from the sidewalk. You need a better life or just a chance at life. What are your options?

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Bump for Sarge.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:44 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, fuck you Geezer.


Thanks, but I don't think you're my type. Besides, Madame Geezer is a good shot.

Quote:

I could cite nation after nation and incident after incident, but you with your background, of all people, know the stats as well as I do.


Surprisingly hard to find stats on starvation deaths by nation. I did find the Global Hunger Index, which shows most hunger in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.

http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/cp/ghi08.pdf

From looking at the list on page 17 of the report (higher numbers = more hunger), most countries with hunger problems are those in a constant cycle of revolution or without government alltogether (DR Congo, Madagascar, Rwanda), countries using starvation as a tool to control or exterminate ethnic or religious minorities (Mynanmar, Sudan), countries using food for political control of the population (Zimbabwe, North Korea), and countries where the government is a Kleptocracy and the political leaders will starve the population to line their own pockets (Nigeria, Togo).

Of countries with the biggest capitalist economies (U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, etc.), where your line of thought would indicate the capitalists are paying their workers less than starvation wages, not one is even on the list.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:02 PM

SERGEANTX


dp

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:11 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
In this case, you've got it bassakwards. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say that the economic world is composed of just a few big players... one or two agricultural corporations, three or four clothing manufacturers, one chipmaker, an automobile maker or two etc. They all operate on the same principle: maximize profit, screw the worker. Maybe they're even in direct collusion... they set wages in consultation with with each other, they blacklist troublemakers etc. There's no law FOR it.... but there's no law against it either.



Sounds good so far, but digging a little deeper you see that without government support, they are powerless. Their money is only good if the government backs it. Their contracts are meaningless without the court system. They have no military and very little ability to defend themselves militarily.

You keep jumping to this moralistic level, all indignant as though I'm cheering for abuse of the powerless or something. All I'm doing is making the very dry, logical point that whatever power companies have is dependent on a structured government to support it. If the support goes away, the companies are powerless.

I'll break it down more. What happens to the company when the government "quits taking their phone calls"? When the police no longer look after their property. When the courts no longer enforce their contracts. When the state no long honors the value of their money? At that point they're no longer the rich and powerful elite. They're just some pushy people in suits stand in the midst of a bunch of expensive factories and offices.



SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 15, 2009 12:59 AM

CITIZEN


The Soviet union wasn't brought down through politics or war, it was brought down largely through economics. Apparently Economic power is as powerful as political power.

You say you're making some very dry logical point, sarge, and I grant it's dry but I'm not confident of the overall logic. You seem to be starting from one premise, then only looking at things in a way that can support that premise. So without political power supporting currency and contracts companies have no power? That rather assumes that those that control production wouldn't find some other way to make up for that loss, doesn't it? These pushy people in suits still have those factories, and if money and contracts are now worthless production will equal power. If I have a factory, and someone else doesn't, that's the basis of political power anyway.

Turn your one sided argument around, without economic power, without anyone providing the economic support for the courts, the police, the money printing presses, all those guys in Washington are, are pushy arseholes in sweaty suits. Without that economic power they can't enforce their laws, they can't enforce their currency, they can't enforce anyone's contracts. Looking at it from only one angle, as you have, makes it easy to say Economic power is much more important than political power, but it certainly isn't logical.

Ignoring the overall illogic of trying to separate out economic and political power in the way you have done of course. All different forms of power are more or less equal, just different ways of expressing the potential control of others. Trying to claim one type of power is subservient to others, is like trying to say thermo-energy is subservient to electrical, it just doesn't make the blindest bit of sense.

Political power is dependent on economic power, economic power needs political power to support it, it's irrational to claim one is subservient to the other under such circumstances. In fact I'd go one further, political power and economic power are the same thing. We just separate it out in the sort of weird pigeon holing we human beings do all the time, based on arbitrary associations that are made up on the spot, but are otherwise rather intangible. To me the only real difference between political power and economic power seems to be that the latter is how much money you can spend, and the former is how much money you have spent. The difference between Potential and Kinetic Energy.

The United States is a very powerful economic power, because it has a big economy with a lot of money in it, that can be used to buy things, things like a big technologically advanced military. It's a very powerful political power, because it has spent a lot of money on various things, like a big technologically advanced military.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 15, 2009 4:11 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
These pushy people in suits still have those factories, and if money and contracts are now worthless production will equal power. If I have a factory, and someone else doesn't, that's the basis of political power anyway.



Ownership of the factory is a legal concept. If the government doesn't recognize their property rights - well, they can say it's their factory, but honestly it's owned by whomever is strong enough to take it.

Even if you assume that the factory "owners" can maintain control of their factory without government (which is stretch), how's this "production" going to happen? It's not like production is a commodity that can be hoarded. It's an activity. If their money is no good, they can't hire people to do the production, to run the machines, etc.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 15, 2009 5:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Sounds good so far, but digging a little deeper you see that without government support, they are powerless. Their money is only good if the government backs it.
Bull. Never heard of company towns, company stores, company scrip? Study history, Sarge.
Quote:

You keep jumping to this moralistic level
It's not moralism, it's a THOUGHT experiment... to a place you apparently don't want to go, but which actually has existed and still exists today.
Quote:

I'll break it down more. What happens to the company when the government "quits taking their phone calls"? When the police no longer look after their property. When the courts no longer enforce their contracts. When the state no long honors the value of their money? At that point they're no longer the rich and powerful elite. They're just some pushy people in suits stand in the midst of a bunch of expensive factories and offices.
They hire private security. That was the place I was going to next. Our hapless worker, assuming he is desperate, strong, and quick enough, might try to work for the company as security... which gets better pay to ensure loyalty.
You really SHOULD study history, Sarge. This HAS happened before. Company towns. Company stores. Company scrip. Company goons.
Quote:

When the courts no longer enforce their contracts
I was under the impresison that tihs was one of the few legitimate functions you conceded to government.
Quote:

Ownership of the factory is a legal concept. If the government doesn't recognize their property rights - well, they can say it's their factory, but honestly it's owned by whomever is strong enough to take it. Even if you assume that the factory "owners" can maintain control of their factory without government (which is stretch), how's this "production" going to happen? It's not like production is a commodity that can be hoarded. It's an activity. If their money is no good, they can't hire people to do the production, to run the machines, etc.
I think I've addressed those points but I'll re-address them. I think we both agree that the value of a currency is determined by production of the economy backing it up. So the factory-owner's money IS good because they have the production capacity to back it up.... they simply will not accept other "currencies" when it comes to buying their goods. Yes, production is an activity, but the relative value of THEIR production (with automation and technology) would be much greater than the relative value of entirely manual production. As a worker, you could simply NOT compete against their production in a cost-effective way. Now, to be sure, in many developing countries people are making the choice to (literally) go back to the jungle, where they can at least exist on a subsistence level. And this was the situation in colonial America: land was free for the taking (provided you could take it away from the natives) and this "floor" created some sort economic democracy. But due to population pressures I don't see this as a viable choice for most people currently.

Ultimately, Sarge, in YOUR system there are no rights. It all boils down to who has the most power.

You fail to realize, Sarge, that there ARE many forms of power. And IMHO economic power is the most powerful, the driving force. People accept various forms of government simply BECAUSE it provides stability in which production can take place. When that form of government costs more than it is "worth" it is replaced by another.

----------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 15, 2009 6:01 AM

SERGEANTX


Ok guys, I give up. Clearly the supremacy of "economic power" isn't something you're going to budge on. It doesn't make any sense to me, but I've got a busy weekend ahead of me. (my son's graduating from college). Maybe we can re-address the issue in a future thread.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 15, 2009 6:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Give it more thought, Sarge. The economic PTB could cut governments out at any time... that IS the direction they're heading in. And then you can face them head-on, all on your own. Good luck with that.

Congrats on seeing your son thru college! Happy commencement day!




----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 15, 2009 7:00 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Ownership of the factory is a legal concept. If the government doesn't recognize their property rights - well, they can say it's their factory, but honestly it's owned by whomever is strong enough to take it.

Even if you assume that the factory "owners" can maintain control of their factory without government (which is stretch), how's this "production" going to happen? It's not like production is a commodity that can be hoarded. It's an activity. If their money is no good, they can't hire people to do the production, to run the machines, etc.


If their money is no good they'll barter. By virtue of having, already in their possession, these foundations of economic power, they're going to be the ones strong enough to hold on to it. At any rate your still looking at it from one side, and even when I show you the other you refuse to see it. The Government wouldn't have any political power to 'grant' all these things, without the economic power supporting it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:33 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


It's interesting to me that the US concerns about government (based on your history) is not shared by a lot of other countries (mine included). It's interesting because we have no Bill of Rights or a constitution like yours to protect us, and yet we don't live in a dictatorship. Under the Westminster System there are no limits to what laws can be introduced, and yet the system itself which contains checks and balances prevents us from spiralling into some awful(er) form of government.

I have no problem with nationalisation of certain industries, in fact I think some things work better with a government at least overseeing it. Somethings don't work well profit based - I'd put healthcare in that one, along with water in this country at least.

On the other hand, I want some limits on the laws that governments can make. I'd prefer there to be less of the nanny state stuff, but I don't see it as a slippery slide to dictatorship, just unnecessary.

Like Signy and others, I worry about any type of organisation that has too much power. At least we can turf elected representatives in elections, at least they are scrutinised, unlike a lot of businesses. It's the corporate world that holds the real power in this world, in my view, particularly financial institutions and those bodies governing them. Governments just bend over and take it when it comes to representing corporate interests over the their constituents, and in reality have very little power to make any significant change.

So in other words, Serg, I want government to have less control over personal decisions that I make that affect myself..who I marry or have relationships with, whether I carry a child to term or not, whether to smoke or take drugs. I think we should be responsible for ourselves and our own families, but I think the provision of a good healthcare and education system will benefit everyone. I think there should be a welfare net, but some mutual obligation for using it. I don't care whether governments own corporations, as long as they don't own everything and the economy works okay.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The economic PTB could cut governments out at any time... that IS the direction they're heading in.



I'm not sure GM, Chrysler, or the companies forced to limit executive pay because they were coerced into taking TARP funds would agree with this conclusion.

I'd bet that the employees at the GM and Chrysler dealerships closed at the government's insistance, now un-employed (and possibly starving), wish the economic PTB could tell the government to butt out.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:52 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:



Ah - So when Obama moves to exert more government control over business, when he says we need to have a redistribution of wealth, when he says we need universal health care, and all the right-wing nut-jobs start screaming "SOCIALIST!" - what they REALLY mean is, "See? I told you he was a capitalist! He just endorsed capitalism!"

Right?

Sweet. I knew he wasn't really a socialist. Obama's win must surely be seen as a victory for capitalists everywhere; I'm sure Geezer would agree wholeheartedly.

Mike





The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money... and more must be printed by government idiots. He knows no country has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity.





1) You'll note for the record that I just endorsed Obama as a CAPITALIST, not a socialist. So did Geezer, although I don't think he thinks so...

2) Duh. No country has ever BORROWED AND SPENT its way to prosperity either. Do you suppose Bush knew this before he tried it?

Quote:


More on this subject :


" Why has this become such an important topic? Because the current administration's economic strategy could create the greatest economic disaster in recorded history.



Or, in other words, the worst economic disaster since the previous administration...

Quote:


Not only is the administration planning on enormous deficit spending this year, but the current plan calls for increasing deficit spending for the next decade – spending that will more than double our entire national debt during Obama's presidency. At the same time, Obama plans to extend federal control over vast and critical sections of our economy, promulgating new and extensive rules and taxes over both the power industry and the health care business.



Go back and read that through again, only substitute "Bush" for "Obama", and see if anything changes. Oddly, when it was "the other guy" doing the exact same shit, many people seemed to have no problem with it.

Quote:


The government will pay for this debt by increasing taxes and inflating away the value of our currency. This will create a disaster in the coming years. I can't tell you when it will happen... but I can tell you it will happen. That's why it's critical you take precautions right now."



1) Are you sure we can't "tax cut" our way out of this? Isn't that what conservatives normally recommend as the solution to massive deficits?

2) How long have you been saying "I can't tell you when, but I can tell you it will happen." I can say the same thing of "The Big One" hitting California, but that doesn't really help unless you can narrow down the timeframe a bit...


Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree with any particular point, O2B. In fact, if you'll go back and read my posts with an eye towards sarcasm and snark, you might find that I actually agree with you - but I do have to wonder where the people were who so vigorously disagree with Obama's policies when the previous administration was doing THE EXACT SAME THINGS.

As for myself, I'm becoming more and more disappointed with Obama; he had the chance to try to DO something in his first hundred days, and he basically pissed it away.

But don't take that as any kind of endorsement of McCain/Palin; I am still convinced that they'd have been even worse.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 17, 2009 5:12 AM

JKIDDO


Quote:

I'd bet that the employees at the GM and Chrysler dealerships closed at the government's insistance
The government hasn't insisted on anything; except that if these companies want government money they must come up with a reorganization plan. Otherwise, they can go the bankruptcy route, which is the typical way of dealing with insolvent companies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 17, 2009 5:41 AM

JKIDDO


I have to take issue with the idea that printing more money will create inflation. Everyone seems to be fixated on the number of dollars floating around in the economy, as if that was the only source of capital. But every time you have a bubble- whether than bubble is in real estate or tulip bulbs- that bubble itself adds money to the money supply by creating "value" on which consumption can be based. Once that debt is turned to consumption it behaves just real money. In other words- bubbles behave just like an increase in "real money" by creating an alternate source of circulating capital.

So the housing and stock bubbles had already created inflation. That's why oil and other commodity prices peaked so high and have since fallen. The inflation has come and gone my friends. The collapsing bubble has shrunk circulating capital. Unless Obama pumps as many OR MORE dollars into the economy as the value lost, the money supply will remain shriveled and the resulting economy will be deflationary. Right now, the total lost real estate value is $4 trillion in 2008. About 1/6 homeowners are underwater, that represents about a $0.7 trillion loss to the lending institutions. Since they leveraged that money somewhere between X25-X35 (say X30 on average) we're talking roughly $20 TRILLION evaporating out of circulation.

Is Obama printing $20 trillion? I don't think so. The math is too complex for me, there are too many assumptions that would have to go into a real accounting of how much circulating capital was based on real estate values, how much disappeared and how much Obama is replacing, but the point is that he is replacing capital that had already been created and lost.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 17, 2009 7:09 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by JKiddo:
I have to take issue with the idea that printing more money will create inflation.


Printing more money makes each individual dollar worthless. The concept is that if you have 100 Units of currency in circulation today, and 200 tomorrow, tomorrow you won't have created wealth, you would have split the wealth among a greater number of units, so that each individual unit is actually worth half of what it was worth yesterday.

The 'worth' of currency is proportional to it's scarcity if you like. If it's very scarce it'll buy more, if it's very common it'll buy less. It's the same reason gold is worth more than wood, because wood, *ahem* grows on trees, while gold doesn't.
Quote:

Originally posted by JKiddo:
Everyone seems to be fixated on the number of dollars floating around in the economy, as if that was the only source of capital.


It's the only source of the Dollar. If you have more of them each one will be worth less, there's no way of getting around that.
Quote:

Originally posted by JKiddo:
But every time you have a bubble- whether than bubble is in real estate or tulip bulbs- that bubble itself adds money to the money supply by creating "value" on which consumption can be based. Once that debt is turned to consumption it behaves just real money. In other words- bubbles behave just like an increase in "real money" by creating an alternate source of circulating capital.


You seem to be getting confused between an asset bubble and inflation/deflation. The latter is where money becomes worth more or less, so prices go up or down, while the former is where the asset value (price) of a commodity expands beyond it's intrinsic value, this is devoid of the worth of the underlying currency, which sets the intrinsic value. The biggest difference is that inflation changes the cost of all intrinsic values, and as long as the money supply keeps in step with inflation it has no real punitive effect on the economy. A bubble will always reset, meaning a rapid devaluation of the asset, which will harm anyone who bought high as they've made a loss.

Strictly to Oil prices, those weren't really a matter of inflation or even a bubble. Oil is a commodity, it's not like stocks or shares, because once you've bought it and used it it doesn't matter if it devalues. With shares you're buying and selling the same shares, so it's bad if they devalue, but with oil you're buying a selling different barrels, so it makes little odds. The actual reasons for the price spike are different to the credit crunch as well. Oil is bought on a futures market, so if you buy and sell oil, you're not buying barrels of Oil that now exist, you're buying Oil that's expected to come out of the ground in the future. That means if there's a possibility that production of Oil will be hurt, the price goes up as it's a greater risk to sell it (because you might not be able to fulfil your commitment).

At the time there were growing tensions with Iran, which could have lead to another armed conflict in the Middle East, and Georgia (a country with a major oil pipeline in progress) was being invaded by Russia. Oil is a major commodity, and also the basis of the fuel we use to shuttle other commodities about. That is if the price of Oil goes up, other commodities go up because they're partly dependent on the price of oil.

The big point is, that no capital has been lost in the credit crunch. There's still as much money in the system now as there was before. The difference is that it's no longer moving around.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 17, 2009 8:46 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ah - So when Obama moves to exert more government control over business, when he says we need to have a redistribution of wealth, when he says we need universal health care, and all the right-wing nut-jobs start screaming "SOCIALIST!" - what they REALLY mean is, "See? I told you he was a capitalist! He just endorsed capitalism!"

Right?


Mike




No country has ever BORROWED AND SPENT its way to prosperity either. Do you suppose Bush knew this before he tried it?

Quote:


More on this subject :


" Why has this become such an important topic? Because the current administration's economic strategy could create the greatest economic disaster in recorded history."


Not only is the administration planning on enormous deficit spending this year, but the current plan calls for increasing deficit spending for the next decade – spending that will more than double our entire national debt during Obama's presidency. At the same time, Obama plans to extend federal control over vast and critical sections of our economy, promulgating new and extensive rules and taxes over both the power industry and the health care business.

Go back and read that through again, only substitute "Bush" for "Obama", and see if anything changes. Oddly, when it was "the other guy" doing the exact same shit, many people seemed to have no problem with it.

Quote:


The government will pay for this debt by increasing taxes and inflating away the value of our currency. This will create a disaster in the coming years. I can't tell you when it will happen... but I can tell you it will happen. That's why it's critical you take precautions right now."



1) Are you sure we can't "tax cut" our way out of this? Isn't that what conservatives normally recommend as the solution to massive deficits?

2) How long have you been saying "I can't tell you when, but I can tell you it will happen." I can say the same thing of "The Big One" hitting California, but that doesn't really help unless you can narrow down the timeframe a bit...


Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree with any particular point, O2B. In fact, if you'll go back and read my posts with an eye towards sarcasm and snark, you might find that I actually agree with you - but I do have to wonder where the people were who so vigorously disagree with Obama's policies when the previous administration was doing THE EXACT SAME THINGS.

As for myself, I'm becoming more and more disappointed with Obama; he had the chance to try to DO something in his first hundred days, and he basically pissed it away.


Mike




Doesn't matter what the puppets are named , what really matters is for Folk to put down their old partisan arguments and begin discovering what is really going on...

I wish you'd bring back your 1984 'blueprint' quote...Because , given the current geopolitical situation , it's becoming more true by the day...

The following may be boring , but sometimes the truth is not so much 'exciting' , as it is just 'scary'...

Know What Is Happening To You , And WHY...

PART 1

PART 2


If you cannot manage to watch , at least give a good listen...

WHILE YOU STILL CAN .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:34 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by JKiddo:
Quote:

I'd bet that the employees at the GM and Chrysler dealerships closed at the government's insistance
The government hasn't insisted on anything; except that if these companies want government money they must come up with a reorganization plan. Otherwise, they can go the bankruptcy route, which is the typical way of dealing with insolvent companies.



From what I've been reading of the government's involvement with GM and Chrysler reorganization plans, Treasury Department "advisors" have been involved every step of the way, letting the companies know which actions would be acceptable to the government, and which wouldn't. I doubt the carmakers would have taken such a big step without getting the OK from these advisors. I read in the business section of the Washington Post today that the government actually wanted GM to close 2,000 dealerships.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:34 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


Doesn't matter what the puppets are named , what really matters is for Folk to put down their old partisan arguments and begin discovering what is really going on...



Agreed.

Quote:


I wish you'd bring back your 1984 'blueprint' quote...Because , given the current geopolitical situation , it's becoming more true by the day...



Watch this space... I didn't write that sig line because I thought it was a passing fad, and watching The New Boss behave more and more like The Old Boss is doing nothing to assuage my fears.



Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:41 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

From what I've been reading of the government's involvement with GM and Chrysler reorganization plans, Treasury Department "advisors" have been involved every step of the way, letting the companies know which actions would be acceptable to the government, and which wouldn't. I doubt the carmakers would have taken such a big step without getting the OK from these advisors. I read in the business section of the Washington Post today that the government actually wanted GM to close 2,000 dealerships.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



I'm getting a lot of conflicting information on the whole Chrysler debacle. Some reports are saying FIAT will own Chrysler outright, others say that FIAT is only going to become the largest single shareholder, but that they won't even hold a majority of voting stock - some 53-57% of the votes would actually be held by the UAW themselves, meaning that the autoworkers actually would, for the first time, own their own factory and have a REAL driving influence in how the company proceeds.

Problem is, I only heard that last from one source, and haven't been able to verify it (because to be perfectly blunt about it, I haven't spent any time trying to run it down yet. :) )

S'wenyways, if it's true that the UAW themselves would be the majority stockholder in one of the Big Three automakers, that would change the landscape a mite. It would be fascinating to watch how they behave and what they do. Will they vote narrow interests, or will they take the wider view? Stay tuned, 'cause it's likely to get very weird in the days to come...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 18, 2009 5:22 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So in other words, Serg, I want government to have less control over personal decisions that I make that affect myself..who I marry or have relationships with, whether I carry a child to term or not, whether to smoke or take drugs. I think we should be responsible for ourselves and our own families, but I think the provision of a good healthcare and education system will benefit everyone. I think there should be a welfare net, but some mutual obligation for using it.



Ahhh... but do you see how these two aims conflict? Setting up government in a caretaker role gives them a vested interest, and a powerful incentive, for exerting more control over society. The healhcare example is good case in point. If we're all responsible for our own health care, it's acceptable to take a live and let live approach to personal decisions affecting health - like dangerous hobbies, tobacco/alcohol/drug use or unhealthy diets and such.

But when we declare health care to be a right, that must be supplied gratis by the community, suddenly there's a compelling reason to control our personal decisions - since personal health is no longer a private matter, and very much the business of the state.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 18, 2009 6:12 AM

BYTEMITE


You know, that's something that bugs me. I'm low risk and don't really ever get sick. So I pay money into the system, and the insurance companies take it happily, because I'm unlikely to ever need it. But so long as they won't be liable for anything, they'll take the money from someone who DOES need medical insurance and give the exact same service, which is to say NONE.

Something just isn't right about that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 18, 2009 7:13 AM

JKIDDO


Quote:

From what I've been reading of the government's involvement with GM and Chrysler reorganization plans, Treasury Department "advisors" have been involved every step of the way, letting the companies know which actions would be acceptable to the government, and which wouldn't. I doubt the carmakers would have taken such a big step without getting the OK from these advisors. I read in the business section of the Washington Post today that the government actually wanted GM to close 2,000 dealerships.
If the corporations want the money, then, yes, they'll have to meet the Fed requirements. Their other option is bankruptcy. it's their choice.

AFA telling what is and isn't acceptable in a reorg plan, I find that a lot more efficient and fairer than the "hidden hoops" method, which is.... you keep submitting plans and we'll tell you whether we like it or not and after, oh- -about 540 iterations- you'll eventually suss out what we had in mind. At least with this approach the corporations know where there stand and can make informed decisions. It's called transparency and I'm all for it.

The only issue that I have is how the government is handling the automakers in relation to how it is handling the banks, which IMHO are getting a free pass. The first $350 billion was let out under Bush w/ no strings attached and was FORCED on banks whether they needed it or not. THAT was ridiculous. And I think the Obama administration is far too willing to help ailing banks limp along. Personally, I think that bankruptcy should be an option for banks too.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 18, 2009 7:16 AM

JKIDDO


Quote:

Ahhh... but do you see how these two aims conflict? Setting up business in a caretaker role gives them a vested interest, and a powerful incentive, for exerting more control over society. The healhcare example is good case in point. If we're all with the same insurance company it has a vested interest in our weight, tobacco use, genetic history, number of dependents etc.
Corrected for you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 18, 2009 7:33 AM

SERGEANTX


Yeah. If we're all forced into the same insurance plan, the control incentive will be irresistible, regardless of who runs it, business or government.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 18, 2009 7:34 AM

JKIDDO


Citizen: RE INFLATION

What is "money"? It's the ability to buy something. That something could be a car or it could be an automobile plant. In either case, the purchase is facilitated with money. It's possible to replace money (currency) with a "promise to pay" (debt). A promise to pay is just as good as actual currency in creating demand, in that sense it works just like "real" money, and it IS real money- FUTURE real money. Now, the classic definition of inflation is "too much money chasing too few goods". Debt-based demand behaves just like "too much money". In fact, the Fed routinely manipulates the money supply by raising and lowering interest rates: Lower interest rates make more borrowing cheaper, demand rises, and the economy behaves as if there is "too much money" floating around. If you doubt that reasoning, just Google deflation 2009. You'll pop up with this right away:
Quote:

The economic issue going forward is, therefore, will the Fed and the Treasury's combined attempt to flood the financial system with money overcome the deflationary impact of a collapse of consumer spending in time to avert a deflationary recession in 2009? Despite the fact that the Federal Reserve is now increasing the money supply at a 10% annual rate, the signs are that it may be insufficient to overcome the tsunami of deflation which is just starting to crash ashore.
www.economicpopulist.org/?q=content/deflationary-recession-2009
My point is not that we're necessarily creating a deflationary period (We are in one now at the moment) but that inflation is not NECESSARILY in the cards just because the government is printing more money. What occurs depends on whether or not the money supply is increased more than it was decreased by the collapse of the real estate bubble. It's an issue of relative rates.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 18, 2009 8:08 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by JKiddo:
What is "money"? It's the ability to buy something. That something could be a car or it could be an automobile plant. In either case, the purchase is facilitated with money. It's possible to replace money (currency) with a "promise to pay" (debt).


No, because in order to lend the money has to exist somewhere. Debt is a mechanism for moving money that does exist, from where it is to where it's needed. It's not a way of creating money.

Money isn't merely the ability to buy something either. It's a commodity in it's own right, especially under a fiat system.
Quote:

Originally posted by JKiddo:
A promise to pay is just as good as actual currency in creating demand, in that sense it works just like "real" money, and it IS real money- FUTURE real money.


It's now real money. A readers digest version would be that the lender is giving you money they have, on the promise you'll pay that and more back later. But at no point is the money imaginary or "future money". It has to exist right now to be lent.
Quote:


My point is not that we're necessarily creating a deflationary period (We are in one now at the moment) but that inflation is not NECESSARILY in the cards just because the government is printing more money. What occurs depends on whether or not the money supply is increased more than it was decreased by the collapse of the real estate bubble. It's an issue of relative rates.


I think you misread your link. Printing more money WILL cause inflation. It's not a possibility, it's a certainty. The question raised by your link is whether that inflation that will happen, will off set the deflation (caused by lack of demand) that will probably happen. The money supply has not been decreased, there's the same amount of money in the system now as there was before, the issue is that that money isn't moving any more because market confidence is low. Consumer prices may drop because demand for goods might fall, that would be the mechanism for any deflation. The difference is that when demand falls the deflation is in the worth of the goods, while inflation due to more money being printed is due to the money itself having a lower intrinsic value.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 18, 2009 8:15 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer

"From what I've been reading of the government's involvement with GM and Chrysler reorganization plans ..."

Cites, references please.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 18, 2009 9:09 AM

JKIDDO


Quote:

Debt is a mechanism for moving money that does exist, from where it is to where it's needed. It's not a way of creating money.
it is if the debt is based on a bubble, like a real estate or stock bubble. If I borrow $100,000 against a house which is valued at $500,000 and on which I owe a $400,000 mortgage, and the value of the house drops to $400,000, that $100,000 which I spent no longer exists.
Quote:

It has to exist right now to be lent.
Banks routinely lend out money which does not exist. They lend out based on their capital (which is "real money"- typically about 5% of bank value) plus their assets- ie performing loans. If those assets should go under that money has in effect evaporated. I know its a screwed system, but that's the way it currently works.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL